Tribunal dismisses Department's appeal on remand order, finding de novo adjudication conducted as directed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal against the remand order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), as the adjudicating authority had already conducted de novo adjudication in accordance with the specific directions. The appeal was deemed moot since the matter had been reserved for orders following the reexamination, rendering the appeal infructuous.

---

---

Issues:
Department's appeal against remand order by Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication with specific directions.

Analysis:
The case involved the Department appealing against the remand order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) directing de novo adjudication with specific directions. The facts of the case revolved around the import of goods declared as "Coumarine," where the Department initiated an investigation regarding Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) due to previous imports by the same importer without paying ADD. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and imposed penalties, leading to an appeal by the importer before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority in line with a Supreme Court judgment, instructing reexamination within 30 days.

The Department, represented by Ms. Sridevi Taritla, argued against the remand order on several grounds. It was contended that the remand lacked proper reasoning, was issued casually without delving into the case's merits, and was not based on conclusive reasons. Moreover, it was argued that the remand order did not consider whether all points were covered in the original order or not, and it was deemed inappropriate for not examining the facts of the case thoroughly.

The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case beyond the scope of conditions under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, citing a Supreme Court judgment regarding the invalidity of proceedings initiated by DRI officers. However, the argument was made that DRI officers are considered 'proper officers' for assessment purposes under Section 17 and Section 28 due to their appointment by CBIC. Additionally, a pending Review Petition by CBIC before the Supreme Court was mentioned.

The respondent's counsel, Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, highlighted that the adjudicating authority had already conducted de novo adjudication as per the remand order, with a personal hearing and written submissions. As the matter was reserved for orders, it was argued that the appeal had become infructuous. Subsequently, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the adjudicating authority had already conducted de novo hearing and reserved the matter for orders, rendering the appeal moot.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, considering the de novo adjudication already conducted by the adjudicating authority as per the remand order, making the appeal infructuous.

---